Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/zvǫkъ

I disagree with the removal of Polish "dźwięk" from derivations. Vowels ǫ and ę alternate, e.g. mąż -> męża. Vasmer lists "dźwięk" as another derivation of "zvǫkъ". Russian derivatives include "звякать" (звук -> звяк -> звя́кать). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Russian я definitely reflects ę in this case and not ǫ, which becomes у. And as for Polish, while the nasal vowels don't reflect the original Slavic situation, you can still distinguish them by the palatalisation. The palatal dźw- must reflect ę and not ǫ. I am a bit confused why Polish has dz rather than just z, though. I suspect that the reconstruction is wrong, and it's actually *dzvǫkъ; dz normally becomes z in almost all Slavic languages but not in Polish. —CodeCat 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

dz is onomatopoetic per Vasmer (see the link in references). Also, Vasmer does not group dźwięk with the set of Slavic cognates of *zvǫkъ, but those of *zvęk-, listed after the semicolon. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

" ср. с другой ступенью чередования *zvęk-", which means "cf. with another level of alteration *zvęk-". All depends, if one needs to split each root into multiple alterations, rather than showing all root variations and its derivations together. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Then we create a separate page, see: *zvękъ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)